tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 04 21:51:44 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Basic grammar question

Qang qu'wI' (

On Dec 4, 2007 6:03 AM, QeS 'utlh <> wrote:
> For my part, I've done exactly the opposite: I've taken Okrand's blatant
> Englishism and generalised it to cover phrasings that couldn't be well
> handled in English. I choose to let what SuStel called the "prefix trick" be
> able to work on *any* verb that has a {-vaD}-marked object. I've written
> things like {DujwIj chotI'} "you fixed my ship for me" in Klingon that would
> be awkward at best and outright ungrammatical at worst if phrased the same
> way in English (?"you fixed me my ship"?). Of course, the fact that *any*
> such prefix trick construct can be replaced with a noun marked with {-vaD}
> means that you're in no way limiting yourself by choosing not to use the
> prefix trick. The choice is entirely up to you.
> (Personally, I feel that usage of the suffix {-vaD} as a dative, rather
> than as a benefactive - which, according to TKD (see p. 28), is what it
> strictly is - is a more concerning Englishism than the prefix trick, and I
> prefer to express purely dative arguments with the prefix trick where I can.
> Just my two cents.)
> I'm really intrigued by this idea.  I don't fully comprehend the formal
linguistic terminology - but I can go do a little research on that and then
think through what you've said.  I think that you're describing a way to
switch between using the prefix trick and -vaD in a manner that is sort of
opposite of the way the corresponding ideas are used in English.

Qang qu'wI'

Back to archive top level